In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants (1913)

Page scan 000341 from In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants

Record Details:

Title:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants
Date:
1913
Publisher:
New York, Appeal Printing Co.
Volume:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants : record volume 1
Leaf #:
000341
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
Format:
Periodicals
Contributor:
The Museum of Modern Art Library, New York
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
These seven volumes contain the testimonies and supporting documents from the U.S. District Court's antitrust lawsuit against the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC). Formed in 1908, the MPPC (sometimes referred to asœ"the Edison Trust" or just "the Trust") sought to control the American film industry through pooling patents and demanding that producers and exhibitors acquire licenses to those patents. Independent producers and exhibitors, who refused to license the patents, argued that the MPPC was an unlawful monopoly. In 1912 and 1913, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard testimonies from both MPPC members, such as Siegmund Lubin, and "Independents" who later became Hollywood moguls, such as William Fox. Ultimately, in 1915, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which found the MPPC in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and spelled the end for the already weakening MPPC. -- Eric Hoyt, 2012
Date Added:
September 12, 2024
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

William II. Swanson, Direct Examination. 319 gathered in a room up there. Mr. Blackton was presiding, 1 and acting as spokesman. Q. He was connected with what company? A. The Vitagraph Company. We came up and outlined the ideas that we would like to do in the way of forming an organization. Q. That is, you went up with these others? A. Went up with this committee of two others, Mr. Peckham, of Cleveland, and Mr. MacDonald, to visit the manufacturers, and outline the purposes of our getting together, and Mr. Blackton stated that the manufacturers would be very glad to work in harmony with the exchange men, in fact, become a part of an organization with them for the betterment of the business, and they requested us to retire from the room and to form an organization and draft our bylaws and constitution and so forth, and to submit it to them, and they would consider whether they would join, or not. We retired as a committee, down to the association's meeting room, and then several of us retired again for the purpose of drafting by-laws and so forth, and submitted them the next day to these manufacturers. They joined the organization. Q. That was at the Buffalo meeting? A. No, sir; that was at the Pittsburgh meeting. Q. State whether or not there was any discussion of patents at the different meetings, or was it a talk — A. (Interrupting) : Oh, yes, patents were always discussed at those meetings. Q. And how about improvement of price and other business conditions? Was there any discussion about that? A. Yes, sir? At the Film Service Association meetings, the film manufacturers always attended, but they segregated themselves into a different part of the room. Mr. . Dyer did most of the explaining regarding patents and the ideas of what they were going to do under those patents. They were going to charge more for the film and more for the projecting machines under those patents. He further explained that we must always bear in mind that we were not to put too much stress on the patents, however, — that the proposition that they had formed was 95 per cent, commercial and 5 per cent, legal. That is, that this formation was 95 per cent, commercial and 5 per cent legal. That they had patents, but that there had always been more or